Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 122, Issue 4, pp 551–569 | Cite as

Euphemisms and Ethics: A Language-Centered Analysis of Penn State’s Sexual Abuse Scandal

  • Kristen LucasEmail author
  • Jeremy P. Fyke
Article

Abstract

For 15 years, former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky used his Penn State University perquisites to lure young and fatherless boys by offering them special access to one of the most revered football programs in the country. He repeatedly used the football locker room as a space to groom, molest, and rape his victims. In February 2001, an eye-witness alerted Penn State’s top leaders that Sandusky was caught sexually assaulting a young boy in the showers. Instead of taking swift action against Sandusky, leaders began a cover-up that is considered one of the worst scandals in sports history. While public outcry has focused on the leaders’ silence, we focus on the talk that occurred within the organization by key personnel. Drawing from court documents and internal investigative reports, we examine two euphemism clusters that unfolded in the scandal. The first cluster comprises reporting euphemisms, in which personnel used coded language to report the assault up the chain of command. The second cluster comprises responding euphemisms, in which Penn State’s top leaders relied on an innocuous, but patently false, interpretation of earlier euphemisms as a decision-making framework to chart their course of (in)action. We use this case to demonstrate how euphemistic language impairs ethical decision-making, particularly by framing meaning and visibility of acts, encouraging mindless processing of moral considerations, and providing a shield against psychological and material consequences. Further, we argue that euphemism may serve as a disguised retort to critical upward communication in organizations.

Keywords

Critical upward communication Decision-making Ethics Euphemism Language Leadership 

References

  1. Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (1991). Euphemism & dysphemism: Language used as a shield and weapon. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Altheide, D. L., & Johnson, J. M. (2012). Normal crimes at Penn State. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 12, 306–308. doi: 10.1177/1532708612446428.
  3. Ashcraft, K. L., Kuhn, T. R., & Cooren, F. (2009). Constitutional amendments: “Materializing” organizational communication. Academy of Management Annals, 3, 1–64. doi: 10.1080/19416520903047186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baron, S. J. F. (2013). Inaction speaks louder than words: The problems of passivity. Business Horizons, 56, 301–311. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2013.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bisel, R. S. (2010). A communicative ontology of organization? A description, history, and critique of CCO theories for organization science. Management Communication Quarterly, 3, 124–131. doi: 10.1177/0893318909351582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bisel, R. S., Kelley, K. M., Ploeger, N. A., & Messersmith, J. (2011). Workers’ moral mum effect: On facework and unethical behavior in the workplace. Communication Studies, 62, 153–170. doi: 10.1080/10510974.2010.551314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bisel, R. S., Messersmith, A. S., & Kelley, K. M. (2012). Supervisor-subordinate communication: Hierarchical mum effect meets organizational learning. Journal of Business Communication, 49, 128–147. doi: 10.1177/0021943612436972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brunsson, N. (2007). The consequences of decision making. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Burgoon, J. K., & Langer, E. J. (1995). Language, fallacies, and mindlessness–mindfulness in social interaction. In B. R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 18 (pp. 105–132). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Candiotti, S., Levs, J., & Ariosto, D. (2012, July 13). Penn State leaders disregard victims, ‘empowered’ Sandusky, review finds. CNN. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/12/us/pennsylvania-penn-state-investigation/index.html?hpt=hp_c1.
  13. Capers, B. (2011). Real rape too. California Law Review, 99, 1259–1308.Google Scholar
  14. Costas, B. (2011, November 15). Sandusky to Costas: “I am innocent of those charges.” Rock Center. Retrieved from http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/11/15/8821656-sandusky-to-costas-i-am-innocent-of-those-charges?lite.
  15. Crome, S. A., & McCabe, M. P. (2001). Adult rape scripting within a victimological perspective. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 6, 395–413. doi: 10.1016/S1359-1789(00)00013-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eisenberg, E. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227–242. doi: 10.1080/03637758409390197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elvasky, C. M. (2012). Because “we are…” Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 12, 297–300. doi: 10.1177/1532708612446426.
  18. Fahnestock, J. (2011). Rhetorical style: The uses of language in persuasion. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Freeh Sporkin & Sullivan, LLP. (2012, July 12). Report of the special investigative counsel regarding the actions of the Pennsylvania State University related to the child sexual abuse committed by Gerald A. Sandusky. Retrieved from http://thefreehreportonpsu.com/.
  20. Garner, J. T. (2012). Making waves at work: Perceived effectiveness and appropriateness of organizational dissent messages. Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 224–240. doi: 10.1177/0893318911431803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Giroux, H. A., & Giroux, S. S. (2012). Universities gone wild: Big money, big sports, and scandalous abuse at Penn State. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 12, 267–273. doi: 10.1177/1532708612446419.
  22. Gregory, S., & Webley, K. (2011, December 12). Penn State of mind. Time, 178(23), 48–51.Google Scholar
  23. Gruner, C. R., Travillion, L. J., & Schaefer, D. E. (1991). Testing the effectiveness of doublespeak. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 48(2), 153–160.Google Scholar
  24. Gutierrez, A. B., & McLaren, P. (2012). To be or not to be a snitch or a whistle-blower: Years of silence at Penn State. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 12, 309–316. doi: 10.1177/1532708612446429.
  25. Jablin, F. M. (2006). Courage and courageous communication among leaders and followers in groups, organizations, and communities. Management Communication Quarterly, 20, 94–110. doi: 10.1177/0893318906288483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kassing, J. W. (2011). Dissent in organizations. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  27. Knights, D., & Willmott, H. (1992). Conceptualizing leadership processes: A study of senior managers in a financial services company. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 761–783. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1992.tb00688.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. Larsson, M., & Lundholm, S. E. (2010). Leadership as work-embedded influence: A micro-discursive analysis of everyday interaction in a bank. Leadership, 6, 159–194. doi: 10.1177/1742715010363208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Levs, J., & Dolan, L. (2012, October 9). Sandusky gets at least 30 years for child sex abuse. CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/09/justice/pennsylvania-sandusky-sentencing/index.html.
  31. Linde, C. (1999). The transformation of narrative syntax into institutional memory. Narrative Inquiry, 9, 139–174. doi: 10.1075/ni.9.1.08lin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2011). Qualitative communication research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. MacKenzie, R. N. (2000). Language, self, and business ethics. Journal of Markets & Morality, 3(1), 22–42.Google Scholar
  34. McGlone, M. S., & Batchelor, J. A. (2003). Looking out for number one: Euphemism and face. Journal of Communication, 53, 251–264. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb02589.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McGlone, M. S., Beck, G., & Pfiester, A. (2006). Contamination and camouflage in euphemisms. Communication Monographs, 73, 261–282. doi: 10.1080/03637750600794296.Google Scholar
  36. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1453–1476. doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.00387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moldoveanu, M. (2009). Why and how do theory groups get ahead in organization studies? Groundwork for a model of discursive moves. Strategic Organization, 7, 235–276. doi: 10.1177/1476127009341625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 373–412. doi: 10.1080/19416520.2011.574506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moushey, B., & Dvorchak, B. (2012). Game over: Jerry Sandusky, Penn State, and the culture of silence. New York, NY: William Morrow.Google Scholar
  41. Paul, J., & Strbiak, C. A. (1997). The ethics of strategic ambiguity. Journal of Business Communication, 34, 149–159. doi: 10.1177/002194369703400202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Phelan, J. E., Sanchez, D. T., & Broccoli, T. L. (2010). The danger in sexism: The links among fear of crime, benevolent sexism, and well-being. Sex Roles, 62, 35–47. doi: 10.1007/s11199-009-9711-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Posnanski, J. (2012). Paterno. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  44. Proffitt, J. M., & Corrigan, T. F. (2012). Penn State’s “success with honor”: How institutional structure and brand logic disincentivized disclosure. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 12, 322–325. doi: 10.1177/1532708612446431.
  45. Redding, W. C. (1996). Ethics and the study of organizational communication: When will we wake up? In J. A. Jaska & M. S. Pritchard (Eds.), Responsible communication: Ethical issues in business, industry, and the professions (pp. 17–40). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.Google Scholar
  46. Rorty, R. (1967). The linguistic turn: Recent essays in philosophical method. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  47. Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schwandt, T. A. (2007). The Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Seeger, M. W., & Ulmer, R. R. (2003). Explaining Enron: Communication and responsible leadership. Management Communication Quarterly, 17, 58–84. doi: 10.1177/0893318903253436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Slovenko, R. (2001). The pervasiveness of sex and excretory language/a lexicon. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 29, 201–270.Google Scholar
  51. Slovenko, R. (2005). Commentary: Euphemisms. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 33, 533–548.Google Scholar
  52. Stein, H. F. (1998). Euphemism, spin, and the crisis in organizational life. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
  53. Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, E. J. (2000). The emergent organization: Communication as its site and surface. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  54. Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Messick, D. M. (2004). Ethical fading: The role of self-deception in unethical behavior. Social Justice Research, 17, 223–236. doi: 10.1023/B:SORE.0000027411.35832.53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tourish, D., & Robson, P. (2006). Sensemaking and the distortion of critical upward communication in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 711–730. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00608.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Trinch, S. L. (2001). Managing euphemism and transcending taboos: Negotiating the meaning of sexual assault in Latinas’ narratives of domestic violence. Text, 21, 567–610. doi: 10.1515/text.2001.012.Google Scholar
  57. Vignone, M. J. (2012). Family, buildings, and wars: Organizational conceptual metaphors. OD Practitioner, 44(1), 27–34.Google Scholar
  58. Waldron, V. R., & Kassing, J. W. (2011). Managing risk in communication encounters: Strategies for the workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  59. Walton, D. (1996). Plausible deniability and evasion of burden of proof. Argumentation, 10, 47–58. doi: 10.1007/BF00126158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  61. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfield, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16, 409–421. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  63. Wolverton, B. (2012, July 1). Records suggest Penn State officials knew sexual nature of Sandusky encounter. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Records-Raise-More-Questions/132725/.
  64. Yu, O., & Zhang, L. (2006). Does acceptance of corporate wrongdoing begin on the “training ground” of professional managers? Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 185–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ManagementCollege of Business, Room 375, University of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA
  2. 2.Diederich College of Communication, Marquette UniversityMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations